Post your theological argument here.

[ArtDrake]

Anyway, I have explained to you what a current theory on how humans "evolved" morals is.

If you had been listening to my point, I think that morals is just a fancy word for a pretty complicated set of rules and balances developed by pressure to compete with other humans and the environment's challenges. Most animals do that, but in a less complicated way. All animals have brains, but in a less complicated way. With a nervous center comes "morals".

[cyso]

Do animals morals convict them?

[ArtDrake]

Do humans' morals convict them?

[bugfartboy]

Is the sun bright?

[ArtDrake]

Not compared to some other stars.

[bugfartboy]

You are avoiding the question. Can you stare at it without any I'll effects? No. Yes we are convicted by our morals.

[ArtDrake]

No. I'm trying to think about the question in ways other than the obvious, something you would do well to do.

Is there a difference between the result of your "morals convicting you" and a feeling of regret?

[cyso]

Morals convict you to act. Regret is the result of not acting appropriately.

[ArtDrake]

I don't understand.

Morals convict you if you don't act, and cause you to feel regret afterwards.

The threat of regret your morals post entices you to act.

Is your understanding different?

[cyso]

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your post. I thought you were saying that morals convicting you results in regret. I was stating that morals convicting you resulted in action, but if you didn't take action, you would feel regret.
By the way, is regret/guilt just a human feeling? I mean, an animal might regret an action if there is a negative consequence resulting from that action, but a human might feel guilt even if they did something that they got away with.

[ArtDrake]

Regret, I'm sure is an animal thing. But guilt... some people say that their dogs look guilty when they've done something wrong, but that could just be them. But the question is, what is guilt?

As I see it, guilt is when an action taken has resulted in harm, not to the taker of the action, but to another individual. Perhaps not immediate or direct harm, but the idea is that there has been something that happened, that the first person thinks might reasonable cause harm to a second person.

This looks to me like an extension of regret, where the potential for an action to cause harm (evaluated and returned as guilt) is equated with a smaller amount of harm. And while regret can refer to any action that causes direct or indirect harm to the person taking action, guilt requires that a second person be harmed or have the potential to be harmed, and that the first person "cares", or feels that by risking the well-being of the second person, they have risked theirs, as harm to the second would cause emotional harm to the first. So the thing that might make humans guilty, and animals not is whether they have the emotional connections required to "care" in this way.

Pack or pod animals, like the guilty dogs, or those dolphins again, might have a better understanding of the emotional connections required for guilt.
I would even say, while this is debatable, that dolphins and maybe dogs DO and/or CAN feel guilt, meaning it's not necessarily a solely human thing. I have to go to bed now.

But what do you think?

[bugfartboy]

I have but one thing to ask:
Would you rather go through life believing there is a God and find out there isn't or go through life believing there isn't a God then find out there is?

I rest my case. I have spoken my mind and shall act as such.

[Steelfist]

And I will reply:

It is not what I would rather; I have too much difficulty simply 'having faith'. Would I rather believe? Yes, it would be nice to simply trust in a higher purpose, and than everything is just 'sorted out' after you die. However, I am not willing simply to accept things, particularly not if it requires disregarding all evidence. Perhaps if people stopped hoping that God would simply 'fix' things, they might make more of a difference in the world, and fix their own problems. Perhapsif they could obey the rules set down in the bible without believing in an otherworldly punishment, they might be more 'christian' than a christian.

There is nothing wrong with being good. Everyone is human, and you do not need to be a theist to be a good person. We may not be born with morals, but that does not mean we cannot aquire them.

Quit worrying about beliefs, and go help some people. Unless you'd rather wait for a deity to sort the worthy from the unworthy, and just stay home?

So yes, I would rather believe. But I won't, and I'll still do mybest to make a difference.

[Duskling]

And I will reply:

It is not what I would rather; I have too much difficulty simply 'having faith'. Would I rather believe? Yes, it would be nice to simply trust in a higher purpose, and than everything is just 'sorted out' after you die. However, I am not willing simply to accept things, particularly not if it requires disregarding all evidence. Perhaps if people stopped hoping that God would simply 'fix' things, they might make more of a difference in the world, and fix their own problems. Perhapsif they could obey the rules set down in the bible without believing in an otherworldly punishment, they might be more 'christian' than a christian.

There is nothing wrong with being good. Everyone is human, and you do not need to be a theist to be a good person. We may not be born with morals, but that does not mean we cannot aquire them.

Quit worrying about beliefs, and go help some people. Unless you'd rather wait for a deity to sort the worthy from the unworthy, and just stay home?

So yes, I would rather believe. But I won't, and I'll still do mybest to make a difference.

Wouldn't say it any other way, and I particularly like the underlined part, as I' am too unwilling to simply believe something if it means just throwing science down the toilet, science is a fascinating thing, which has many people supporting, with much proof, however, religious folk, we only have their word to take, and, while I don't see what they would get out of lying either, there isn't anything backing it up, except other people's word.

[ArtDrake]

I was actually having a nice discussion with yogc elf about the nature of sin, morals, ethics, regret, and guilt, and whether you could say that animals can feel those, too, and thus whether humans are truly different in ways other than sheer intelligence and complexity of brain.

And then you came in playing the "wouldn't you like to consider yourself part of something larger" card, to which I say

I would rather live my life believing that there is no God; I hold myself to be a rigorously scientific person, and believing in a God whose Word is:

"Who do you really want to believe? Me, or your own lying eyes?" to which I say that I will trust my eyes thank you very much, and if they lie, you made them lie.

If there is a God, all I have to say is that there just as easily could have been an Allah, or a Jewish God, or a Buddha, or Hindu god(s), or a bunch of Greek Olympians, and I would have been damned even worse if I had been Christian. I honestly say that the odds were atrociously stacked against me, with thousands of religions, most of which saying that if you pick any other, you're damned. So, O great and mighty one (godly for To Whom It May Concern), sorry, but the chances of me finding the right one out of all these charlatans are miniscule, and I am no prophet; I'd rather live life to the fullest, believing my own eyes, lying or otherwise, than play the lottery.